memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Future's End, Part II (episode)
Continuity Error? (Should I add it?) When Janeway returns to the bridge after firing the torpedo, she has burns on the left side of her face. The doctor urges her to go to Sickbay but she refuses and goes to the bridge. After talking with Braxton, her face is suddenly clear. No burns. It sounded like a continuity error (filming stopped and began again but they forgot that detail). -- 02:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC) * No. Episode articles and the background information section of episode articles are not for nitpicks-- they are for nothing but behind the scenes/production information. --Alan del Beccio 04:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Stardate The stardate listed on this page is 50132.5 But at StarTrek.com, it is 50312.5 I don't have access to the episode. Is this simply a typo here? The same stardate is listed for Part I. Jdvelasc 05:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC) The stardate listed here for this episode was clearly wrong (Janeway cites the stardate just before the final scene in the mess hall). I have corrected it to 50312.5 (two numbers were transposed). However, it is still listed incorrectly in the matrix for VOY season 3, and I don't know how to change that section. I was not paying attention during Part I, so the other stardate may have been mentioned in that episode, but it seems highly unlikely and the updated stardate should apply to both parts. 1 November 2007 Paradox? Normally my understanding of Star Trek's temporal physics is good however I was left slightly perplexed about the events of this episode. If the Aeon was destroyed by Voyager before Starling could travel into the 29th century then the temporal explosion would not have occured and the solar system not destroyed and Voyager also would not have travelled to the 29th century in pursuit of Starling. Thus Braxton would not have detected debris from its secondary hull and would not have travelled back to destroy Voyager and not end up crashing in the 20th century. If this didn't happen then from dialogue in the episode it would seem the Earth's computer age would not have happened (at least not in the 20th century) and it's possible the Star Trek we know wouldn't have existed. If you see my point. --The NCC Factor 20:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC) I would consider this to be the most confusing of time travel stories. As Braxton said, A leads B which leads to C. A. The Temporal Explosion occurs, leading Braxton to travel back in time to B. Where he attempts to destroy Voyager, but they resist, leading to C. Where they both end up in 20th cenutry Earth, where the time machine falls into D. Henry Starling's hands, where attempts to travel to the 29th century, which would lead back to A However, Voyager stops him, so A never happens, and neither does B, which means Voyager should have been right back where it started. (Braxton shouldn't of had to sent them back) Since Voyager was still there, it is possible, that every that happened after Braxton's arrival in 1967 did happen for real. (Although, Braxton saying he has not experienced that time-line complicates things, unless at that time (in his life) this episode's events are in his future)--Sml 00:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Another way home Didn't Kirk use a sub-light maneuver around the sun to get himself from the 1960's to the late 2200's? Couldn't Janeway, instead of following the timeship back, used the maneuver to get back hereself? Then again, with a 29th century ship afoot, they may not have been able to get that far without being caught and dragged back to the Delta Quadrant by force. Just something to wonder about. Removed :*''Reference to 47: When Dunbar activates the satellite to transport Starling back from Voyager the computer of the timeship acknowledges: "Satcom 47 activated."'' :*''The Doctor mentions having recently undergone a severe programming loss, and that he is still in the process of recovering his memory files. Presumably, this is a reference to the events of , several episodes prior to this one.'' Removed 47 and presumably doesn't mean it is. — Morder 03:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC) :Not certain, granted, but I find it highly unlikely that he went through some other sort of massive program loss would have happened. It seemed blatantly obvious, quite frankly.Fyre2387 18:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC) ::It's just that the 4-letter word "presumably" is an attention-getter around here. I also believe this reference is unequivocal and not a presumption or a speculation. "Recent" means 50252 to 50312 - 60 stardates, or about 20 days. If the Doctor had another massive programming loss during that time, he'd be, like, a vegetable. I support adding it back without the word "presumably". --TribbleFurSuit 19:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC) :::I readded the note, minus "presumably". Clear refs like this aren't speculation.– Cleanse 00:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC) And that's why we archive removed items here :) — Morder 01:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Should these be removed? * In the teaser of this episode, Tuvok says a phrase that is also the title of the second season Voyager episode . * Starling's company is called "Chronowerx," yet the inside of the timeship bay is emblazoned with "Chronowerks". Should these be removed? The first one doesn't seem very relevant, and the second note is a bit nitpicky. I'll leave them for now, I guess.MajorTom1 13:28, January 19, 2012 (UTC) :I'd remove the first one- it's a common phrase and there is no proof that the other episode was being referenced. The second isn't a nitpick as it points out contradictions in facts- though it might be better pointed out at Chronowerx Industries(which it is). I could go either way on keeping it here or not.--31dot 15:05, January 19, 2012 (UTC) Thanks! I'll just get rid of the first one for now.MajorTom1 09:28, January 21, 2012 (UTC) ::Actually, it's entirely obvious that the earlier episode is being referenced. Whether intentional or not, it's still a reference! So, it's completely beside the point whether it is meant to be a reference, something we will never know anyway! --Defiant 13:07, January 22, 2012 (UTC) :::Is every episode that uses the words "the enemy" a reference to ? "Non sequitur" is a relatively common phrase. I fail to see how it is "entirely obvious" that it was a reference. That's why we ask for citations for these things – people's opinions differ, so let's stick to what was actually intended.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 07:24, January 23, 2012 (UTC) ::In answer to your question, yes, they're all referencing . Wishing it were not so does not actually make it not so! --Defiant 10:30, January 23, 2012 (UTC) :And wishing it was doesn't make it so either. That's why we need evidence that it wasn't anything other than the use of a common phrase. Is every use of the word "Meld" in Star Trek a reference to ? Is every use of the phrase "shore leave" a reference to ? --31dot 12:10, January 23, 2012 (UTC) ::Of course they are. I'll agree with you that whether I want them to be a reference is completely irrelevant; that's kind of my point. These are references, whether we want them to be or not and even regardless of whether the writers and other production personnel wanted them to be or not. --Defiant 12:55, January 23, 2012 (UTC) ::I'd still opt for info about such references being omitted from episode articles, etc., simply in the interest of relevancy, adding only the ones for which we have evidence that they were intentional. But that still doesn't stop the others being references; it's just a fact that they are, whether intended or not. --Defiant 13:00, January 23, 2012 (UTC) :These are not references because no connection to the episode the alleged "reference" is to is being made. They are common words. If an episode was named "And" would every use of the word "and" in Star Trek be notable as a "reference"? Of course not. What the producers and writers intended is not irrelevant- we are an encyclopedia that requires all information be backed up. --31dot 13:02, January 23, 2012 (UTC) ::Thanks for the lecture, but I'm obviously aware of your last point! Of course, I'm not suggesting that what the producers and writers intended is completely irrelevant, but in some cases (such as this one, bearing in mind that what's on screen does generally trump what they intended), it is. Their intentions (or lack thereof) don't change the fact, one iota, that these are indeed references. --Defiant 13:18, January 23, 2012 (UTC) :I'm not sure you are aware of my last point, because you seem to be saying we should accept this as a "reference" when there is no evidence that it was anything other than using the common phrase, any more than using the word "and" would refer to an episode entitled "And". There is no reference unless someone says "Yeah, I threw that in there because I wanted to reference that episode" or they make some comment on it after the fact. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that.--31dot 13:58, January 23, 2012 (UTC) ::I am understanding what you're saying, but the same doesn't seem to be true vice versa. This is a minor argument, IMHO, and you seem intent on blowing it out of proportion when, really, all it boils down to is semantics. I'm not saying we should "accept" this as a reference in as much as we should feature it on any pages; I just don't like users who are relatively newbies being told something that is so blatantly misleading or even incorrect, grammatically. I would have much preferred you to have said something along the lines of, "Yeah, it's a reference, but we don't feature it for relevancy's sake, as there's no evidence that it was an intentional reference." --Defiant 14:10, January 23, 2012 (UTC) ::Even if you had just said the phrase "intentionally referenced" in your first sentence on this thread rather than just "referenced", I think that would have done the job, without running the risk of being so grammatically misleading. --Defiant 14:22, January 23, 2012 (UTC) :Or you could have said that you agreed with removing the comment but disagreed with how I worded my comment in the first place, instead of saying that "it was a reference" (where you also did not use "intentional") I think the "intentional" is unnecessary, as saying "it was a reference" suggests an intentional act- if unintentional it is merely a "similarity"- but I'm not going to further debate semantics on this page. --31dot 14:38, January 23, 2012 (UTC) :To clarify, I was referring to the last sentence of your first comment- I see that you used in in the second sentence. --31dot 14:45, January 23, 2012 (UTC) ::Good – it seems we've more or less finally reached an understanding here! "Similarity" is not applicable in this case, as "non sequitur" as used here is clearly exactly the same phrase (therefore not just a similar one) to the title of the episode "Non Sequitur". In future, just try to be clearer about how you use the word "reference" (and accept that, yes, there is such a thing as an unintentional reference), instead of trying to argue your way out of a paper bag! --Defiant 15:03, January 23, 2012 (UTC) ::::So that we don't have this argument or discussion again: ::::# Not every mention of a word or phrase is actually a reference. It's not a reference unless it alludes to other mentions of such. ::::# We don't care if a word or phrase is the same as some other word, phrase, or title unless someone on the production staff states that it was intentional. ::::# Stop arguing for the sake of attempting to prove a point. ::::Seriously guys... this went on for far too long. You all know way better than this. -- sulfur 17:22, January 23, 2012 (UTC)